Why would Lieberman vote to provide HC insurance to all Americans? He and his wife make 100s of thousands of dollars to support the HC insurance industry. He knows his career is over when his term expires. Connecticut voters hate this sold out lying criminal so he is cashing in while he can. Then hell go to work as a HC insurance lobbyist. This guy is pure scum.
GOD'S PROMISE TO NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD. Bible - Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT PRIORITY - IS A HOAX !!!!!!!!
If you live in Connecticut and have a facebook, join my facebook group Recall Joe Lieberman. I know that Connecticut does not currently have a law that allows a recall but that's also what the group is about. Calling your state representatives and state senators and telling them to pass a law that would allow a recall. Then calling your governor and telling her to sign into law.
This guy is prick, he spent countless hours going after the video game industry for being immoral meanwhile he took a ton of money from Enron, why do abominations like this bastard live for ever
Thank you Joe Lieberman for proving my pint.. You and other Democrats are the reason that I don't always vote for all Democrats. Lieberman can't be trusted just like most politicians. Case in point Lieberman ran on the democratic ticket with Kerry in 2004. When Kerry didn't win, Lieberman started kissing the GOP ass. Politicians ONLY care about themselves and not the people that they represent.....
Oh, and I'm not an anarchist. I believe we need to government in limited terms, because without government to enforce the framework of laws and supply a military, we would be in grave danger. So government is necessary for freedom, but because they have a role in limited terms is that an argument for unlimited terms? No. The people who take this argument enjoy the idea that such things can be viewed so black and white.
Answer me. Has government intervention to help the poor work? No, more people are on welfare than ever and we have a growing underclass. Has government intervention stopped drug flow? No drug use is rampant. Has government intervention made our schools better? No our education system is a joke.
Explain to me what government has done right, in explicit numbers and explicit terms, and then maybe you will have yourself an argument.
Ok let's stick to a topic. The main issue you are taking exception to is government in relation to freedom, so let's focus on that. Surely you do not buy into the contradictions by the far right that the government can't do anything except run the largest military and prison system in the world. So lets assume that we both agree, the government can do things, and do them well. I believe that government should not be limited to protecting the propertied class. A democtratic gov.
A democtratic government should play an active role in raising the conditions for economic and social wellbeing for all persons. Government should not simply be negative: Government simply protects from abuses, but plays no active role in ensuring fair conditions for "freedom".
In relation to health care, I think a single-payer should be employed and would be more affordable, more accessible, and more reliable.
Europe has its own excruciatingly painful problems, despite how fashionable we try and make their system to be
If you believe government knows what is best for you, than you know what's best for yourself. If you believe agencies can handle the delicate intricacies of an economy than the people can, then government is the answer. If you believe quantity is better than quality, government is the answer. If you have no issue substituting your liberty for security, you don't deserve freedom.
Do we request government fix the problem they created? Yes. How? Get rid of the regulations they put in place in the first place.
What this boils down to is your belief in freedom. If you believe security is more important than freedom, well then government will sound like the best answer... but just keep in mind every country that has ever asked for security from its government has gone down the road to totalitarianism.
This is just one aspect of many that would ultimately lead the public option to being THE ONLY OPTION. The public option would not spur competition, it will completely snuff it out because as I said government is not a natural entity of the private market.
So we have a problem of expensive insurance premiums that are a product of government intervention. State line barriers have created the monopolies that are now antagonizing us.
Before you start assuming my lack of knowledge, you should makes sure you get your own facts right. Health insurance monopolies are largely a result of their exclusion from federal anti-trust laws, not large start up costs for small businesses. Now, after reading your belabored summary of how freemarkets work, I should tell you that I have a masters in philosophy and have read plenty of economics from Smith 1K page bible of economics to Friedman So spare me the "I know more than you" crap Cont
Anti-trust laws are laws NOT REGULATION. I'm not telling you that corporations should be excluded from LAW. The exclusion of corporations from anti-trust is just a further example of the corporatism inspired by government interests.
And spare me the masters in philosophy, a degree in philosophy is about as worthless as the paper it's written on.
I don't claim to be an expert of economics. I claim to enjoy freedom.
Regulations are laws my friend no matter how you slice it. Anti-trust laws are regulations--maybe you could use some philosophy to fine tune your logic; and tell your "it's useless" crap to MLK who, like me, studied theology and got his doctorate in it.
You believe in freedom so now we are in, uh oh, PHILOSOPHY TERRITORY
Let's just say, for now, I unlike you simply do not agree that freedom is necessarily negative in relation to gov. Gov. can provide the conditions for actualization con
Yes, regulation encompasses a large category. Including laws, but there are many more sub categories that I didn't think we had to go into because you claimed to have a 'Masters'. But if you want to go into semantics then yes laws are regulations, just as murder is regulated to keep people from being killed. But I'm not going to request the government regulate every move I make to ensure I'm not killed. I want to leave my house at night, that is my choice.
Private corporations and private wealth can be a hindrance to freedom just as much a government--and in our case, the private comps control the government.
Just be careful with your absolute dichotomy between government and freedom. Freedom is not necessarily equal to a lack of positive government laws and institutions so long as those institutions, especially if the government that makes them is a government OF THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE
Competition by itself is not always good. The West learned that lesson good when it abandoned any hint of laissez-faire, and then decided to force newly formed thrid world states to detrimental laissez-faire practices that have ruined their economies. I sighed when you suggested it necessarily leads to better management: tell that to the employees who get trapped in fires in American based factories stationed in the third world because of lack of regulated working conditions COnt
American corporations in the third world can offer such poor work standards, because there is no internal competition for their labors to begin with. American corporations have a monopoly on labor in this sense.
Secondly, every country that has opened themselves up to the West are better off economically then countries that have not. Just because they have opened themselves up doesn't mean they are going to be the next America however. Capitalism needs the right framework and laws to operate in
Nope...I disagree with your take on the third world and the West entirely, and lack of regulation in those countries allowing cheap labor is the primary reason why Western comps relocate there.
And I like how you make me sound like the elitist, when you were the one who started the "I know more than you" stuff
You, like most Limbaugh conservatives, always jump from government intervention to totaletarianism and gov. control of your every move but without any real basis for the claim
But we are talking about health care not econ 101--of which you accept the status quo theories.
As I have said repeatedly, releasing state barriers does not create more competition among the few health care giants that already dominate the nation. These few giants will simply relocate to the least regulated states which will gut insurance coverage and raise the costs for those who need it most. It would simply be a race to the bottom. The health industry wants that to happen.
Excuse me, econ 101 no matter how simple, still contains the bases for economic analysis. We are not talking about health care, health care is left to the doctor and the patient. We are discussing the administration of insurance. Economics no matter how simplified contain the principles necessary to conceptualize market behavior.
And I'm done arguing with you, all you do is repeat yourself, while taking shots at my 'simple' arguments. How about you fix your own arguments first. Peace.
Competition is the best fighter against corporate abuses. Now you can say government would be a competitor, but then you would be wrong again. Government is not a private market competitor because they do not observe the rules of the free market. They do not rely on the profit-motive, they rely on taxes. When people are taxed for a service, generally, people will gravitate towards that service because they want to get their money's worth. *cont above
If state barriers were taken down, now suddenly monopolies that enjoyed extremely limited competition would now have to answer to thousands of companies. Competition inspires better management of a company, there would be less managerial waste, more product diversification. Also, insurance companies could not just 'drop' people, because they have a reputation to look after on a national scale, where buyers will become wary and go elsewhere. *cont above
How did they get so well-established? Well the only way monopolizers come into existence is when there are barriers to entry in the market. State lines protected them from outside competition and now these huge corporations that everyone detests are a product of that.
Also, you assume mandates are necessary to ensure quality. That is also false. Competition would not degrade quality if state barriers were taken down. *cont. above
Let's empower the largest corporation in the world with a monopoly on health care - the U.S. government.
"Public Option" to start with is a lie and goes down hill from there. It is first and foremost a government monopoly. It would be like your cable company deciding what your satellite company should charge.
Google "Progressive Capitalist H.R 3962" to find my blog on this.
You want free healthcare? Fine...make a deal then. I can say that if the goverment reduces immigration from 2 million a year to 100,000 a year, and stops the guest worker nonsense...and brings our troops home from 130 nations they are in now...then we conservatives will give you free "goverment" healthcare. DEAL? I and many conservatives would make a deal like that.
OOO she actually asked him a tough question too, Fox have been falling over themselves lately though to prove their fair and balanced, a bit late in the day ofc but a good start.
When Ghandi made his first visit to UK a reporter asked him what he thought of "Western civilization", Ghandi simply replied that he thought "Western civilization" would be a good idea, not much has changed from then eh.
I don't blame anything on "the white man." If you'd read my earlier comments, you'd see that I am more concerned about culture and ethnicity than vague terms like "black" and "white" that are only useful when one wants to prove one's superiority over another.
I believe you mean "Western civilization" when you use such a term, and even that is incorrect since West. Civ is an amalgamation of a great number of cultures.
what's with the obsession with "Jews?" I know you've stated you're not trying to be anti-semitic, but despite all my reading of history, I've never understood the desire to blame Jews for a majority of the world's ills. And by the way, I consider myself a principled critic of he state of Israel and someone who believes in the palestinian dream of statehood.
I think we get bogged down when we use shorthands like "whites", "blacks", "Jews" etc...
I did not intend to start a racial fight with comments on my poor patients. I last worked at a VA hospital where I had the honor of helping our veterans of all races. I am sincerely worried about my patients regardless of race and enraged by Liebermans plan to defeat the public option and to filibuster with Repubs. He states the public option can wait for three or four years. The vernacular translation of this is, "give us three or four years and we will kill it".
But it leads to race. Look, 100% of the black caucus supports the public option for a reason. Because they know it will lead to a "single payer system"...goverment run "free" healthcare. Liberals already admit they want public option because it will lead to singlepayer. Then the blacks get free healthcare, as will all the refugees we bring in every year (that we dont need) from Africa. So in a big way, this is a racial thing.
So now you're saying no "white person" wants the public option? (lol!) You know I actually worked in Upstate New York as a social worker with mostly white rural folks. Poverty is poverty: it knows no color, and you better believe that one of the reasons I believe in single payer is that it will help everyone, not just one group. And no one I know believes it's free: we're not stupid. We just believe it's more fair than a system dictated by insurance companies.
Yeah, but whites AS A WHOLE dont want. Blacks as a whole do. And there is your difference...I play the percentages.
Cultures from everywhere might be in the west, but the 3rd world cultures have not helped the west advance...be honest. Look at their home nations...3rd world. Whites are why the west evolved.
Look, I could write a novel about all your erroneous beliefs and assumptions, but they basically boil down to: "blacks (and other minorities) are lazy and shiftless and have never come up with anything good, while whites are being persecuted despite the fact that they only have been a force for good in this world." I'm sorry but I just can't take anyone who believes these things seriously. Happy Fox News watching.
No, I never said whites are perfect. Im talking about the politicaly correct shit that I have to constantly hear about "black in America" and "how great blacks are" and other stuff about MLK, despite the fact that without whites, blacks would be in the trees eating fruit with the monkeys. Whites get no cred for what they have created, whereas blacks get a ton of cred...for creating almost nothing! And causing high crime!
black people in america are not a 3rd world culture. that was a very unamerican thing to say. everyone with american heritage has played a part one way or another in the advancement of westeran civilization. africa is africa. america is america. my home nation is not africa. i may have some roots in africa. but my families home has always been AMERICA.
I am saying that other than music, blacks have not contributed to the advancment at all of westren society. Saying that they have is a political correct lie. But hey, it FEELS GOOD to say it, right?...political correctness. Lets have more MLK holidays, and "black in America" programs, and black history month. Should we talk about all the great industry and maufacturing they invented and created? Procter & Gamble, AT&T, Ford? Yeah, thats why in Africa there is so much industry. (roll eyes)
your whole statement is based off of opinion. a flaud opinion. it's also a very broad statement. there are many aspects to western society and you are saying that they only contributed to music. what about western culture? fashion? economics? religious? those are just a few aspects to western society! fuck being politically correct. and stop bring up africa. i'm american. people from africa are african. i'm from america.
I do not deny at all that race is a serious issue in our society. As a physician though, I refuse to allow it to affect the way in which I practice medicine. I am certain that you will disagree with me, but I believe that health care is a basic human right in a democratic nation. I used to believe that people should just pay their premiums and everything would be OK. Then I saw my first patient die after her insurance refused to cover the antibiotic she required but insisted on a cheaper med.
Now, if blacks stop complaining, and start acknowledging what whites have done for the world in medicene, industry, manufacturing, and modernization...engineering (look at Europe too), and how Africa has none of that... then we can have a REAL dialog about race. But as long as "whitey sux" and "blacks are great" in every conversation, we will NEVER have that discussion. Not really.
And no more MLK days...we dont give a damn about MLK. Because blacks are ungrateful.
When you claim talk about the exclusive achievement of whites, it makes me wonder if you've ever bothered cracking open a book of World History. Your claim that all those accomplishments are only "white" ones is laughably ignorant. Just to give you an example: you disparage Africa while ignoring the fact that algebra comes from the continent. As for where Africa is now: learn about colonialism: it'll set you straight on the so-called "superiority" of white culture.
Here we go again...talking about how blacks contribute more than just crime in America. Ok...how many African nations are not garbage? Answer: NONE. All third world, producing zero. Oh I know, its whiteys fault, always is. Why we held them back you know, just like Jamacia and Hati right? And Japan...we dropped Atom bombs on them and occupied them but wait! Japan rose to a serious power despite that. No excuses from Japan.
Political correctness causes blacks to live the lie.
wow: I actually thought you might be able to hold a civil debate, but to make sweeping generalizations like ."how many African nations are not garbage? Answer: NONE." is so ignorant that it's no use. You're less interested in reason than in stroking your own ego.
Good luck living a life filled with life-sapping narrowness. Just as I thought: you haven't read much in your life.
(oh and the part about Japan actually made me laugh" we nuked them, but hey, they're ok." This is redneck logic.)
You assume that all blacks are going around saying things like "whitey sucks." All you're revealing is your own lack of experience with African Americans and your monumental insecurity. I have friends of all cultures and so do all the blacks I know, but once again, the very idea of saying "whites are...." or "blacks are..." is the height of intellectual laziness.
As for MLK, if you had really read him, you would know that his importance lay beyond simply race relations.
Yeah did you think of that when you said we should stay in Iraq til we have victory which has costed us billions of dollars. or when you voted to bailout Wall street which also costed billions of dollars.
Why don't you tell the real reason you oppose our right to choose a public option, Joe? Your corporate masters paid you 1.1 million in insurance lobby contributions, and you sold your political soul. You also sold your morals and ethics. And you gave us over to the private insurance companies, while you continue to keep your GOVERNMENT insurance plan; the same one you call an "entitlement program, if WE get it.
fucking lies. the public option is paid for by the people that use it. it's just going to cost less than buying private insurance. the only reason for private insurance to raise their rates would be if everyone in the country decided to immediately jump to the public option, otherwise it forces private insurance to lower rates. that is BASIC economics. anyone who believes the shit he is spewing is not thinking straight. he's also saying lets not try any new answers to our long running problems.
I am a physician who has been anxiously awaiting a robust public health option on behalf of my patients. The majority of my work has been in the poor areas of Chicago where a majority of my patients patients have no health insurance or Medicaid if they are so lucky. I am also a registered Democrat who was absolutely disgusted by Joe Liebermans behavior during the 2008 election as he undermined President Obamas patriotism, qualifications and then endorsed Senator John McCain instead.
You're obviously a commie socialist. Just joking!!! Good to see a caring citizen. Keep up the good work. Lets hope reform happens sooner rather than later.
Poor areas of Chicago? Just admit it doc, your talking about the negros. Of course they dont have health care and need public healthcare. They need an entitlment on anything you can think of.
Being a "negro" myself, I am truly impressed with your vast knowledge of the motivations of my people :)
Really? You had to go there? Pathetic Calimar. Really pathetic.
And by the way "entitlment" is spelled "entitlement." I suppose I should judge "your people" based on your lack of command of the English language, but no one would be THAT ignorant, right? (sarcasm, over).
Lets talk about the 800 pound gorilla (not Michelle) that is in the room. Whites are put off by Obamas election. Heres why.
Blacks provided a little labor (mabey 8% total) to build the country. Whites provided 80%, but more importantly, the stuff that counts - industry, manufacturing, production. Thats what makes America...America. And we dont think that a black should run what we made.
Whats wose is blacks always complain about whites...while enjoying what whites have made!
Slave labor = hard labor. That can be gotten anywhere, and only added to 8% of the total labor anyway. What about Manufacturing and industry? You know, the things that seperate the 3rd world from white countries?
Can you admit that whites have done GREAT and made the modren world? No, of course you wont. Just fan the flames of more whites not respecting blacks.
On tope of this: African Americans and other minorities are the bulk of the working class, the very economic sectors you erroneously claim is made up by "whites": Industry: check. manufacturing? check.
Then you go into a childish joke about Michelle Obama being a Gorilla. If racist imagery is the best you can do, I'm not really threatened.
You've been fed mythology about your own superiority and are regurgitating it without an ounce of critical analysis: that's just sad
ok so if 80% of the country was built by whites (you saying this not me) then im guessing it stands to reason that 80% of the presidents should be white right? now is 43 out of 44 80%? i dot think so. so in fact you white guys owe us minorities some presidents. also stuff that counts? black slaves built the capital that dosnt count?
The Government will put Private insurers OUT OF BUSINESS Because the GOV doesn't CARE about making a PROFIT - they just tax you and me even more. Add to that Governments famous abilities regarding efficiency (none) and care for your dollars (none again) and you can see where it ends up.
Yep, How can you compete with anyone that can operate with a loss? You can't. So, insurers will be out of bussiness and the government (TAXPAYERS) will pay.
Goverment doesnt care about makign a proffit? Have you ever read a bill that goes through congress? They add a bunch of stuff called "pork", and then they pay for it all with OUR MONEY.
You are probably right. Luckily I live in a nation where everything works rather smoothly and the government is careful about their spending.
It is possible that Americans are of a different breed then us Norwegians, and as such are to vile, satanic and evil to do what is good. If that is the case, I guess the public option is not for you.
Evil and satanic? Tell you what, you start bringing in 300,000 African blacks into your country every year, and then tell me how your health care costs are going. And when the Norwegien army occupies 130 nations in the world with 700 bases, we will see how Norway can afford any health care.
WE don't occupy 130 nations because we are not retarded. Its not my fault your government is utterly idiotic. You know why 9/11 happened? You know why much of the world hates america?
WE don't bring in 300.000 people per year because we are not retarded. It is not my fault your government is retarded. Its your country. Your problem. Deal with it.
Lets say it, it needs to be finally said. Hitler was a genius. You can put him down for a lot of things done wrong, but he did a lot of right as well. A military and financial genius he was.
Notice how Republicans always talk about money and Democrats always are the ones who talk about love and care for humanity?
Good always wins over evil.
Anyone who supports 44,000 needless american deaths a year over profits for private insurance, I wonder what side god has them on? Good or evil? there are only two types of people,good and bad.
Love and care for humanity costs big money. The below quote explains everything...
"Humanatarianism is weak and cowerdace" - Adolf Hitler
You may not like Hitler, but he was a financial genius. We are 105 trillion in debt. We might go bankrupt, and the dollar go itno hyperinflation. That means 1,000 dollars for a loaf of bread. That means China wants paid back, and we can only give them land...this is serious stuff.
Public option? That only adds to the debt. Your priorities are wrong
Anyone who quotes Adolf Hitler to try and lend credibility to a position is a degenerate.
It is very safe to say that the best thing you can do with a Hitler quote is read it and do the opposite.
Btw, Hitler did create a very paternal state during in Nazi Germany. If you are looking at Nazi Germany as an example of laissez-faire capitalism you are definitely barking up the wrong tree. And he was no financial genius. He had absolutely no training in economics or business & cared little for it
He took Germany from broke to a world superpower in about 7 years. You may not call that genius, but I do.
And quoting the Fueh--I mean Hitler has no credibility you say, but Obama's spokeswoman quoting Mai Sai Tung...that has credibility? You know how many people that communist killed?
I just read your long string of comments and arguments with other people here and now I pretty much fully understand the depths of your ignorance. So your believing Hitler was some kind of financial genius does not surprise me. You are just another childish admirer of the monster and you know nothing but superficial information about the man.
Btw, he brought Germany out of debt by shrugging off its obligations that were placed on them from the Versailles Treaty. Nothing genius there at all.
That warmonger free spender is cheap on the "people", and liberal on pissing trillions on corporate war in asia, drug wars and other stupidity... evil 2 party corporate state puts up its bought scumbag.
This hound dog looking motherfucker definitely has his nose up the big insurance companies ASSES!!! But what really pisses me off, Is this cocksucker supports sending Israel billions in tax payer money, But he won't support his own citizens have affordable health insurance, And if the US is the only democracy that doesn't have public run insurance, Does that include Israel? and how much of the billions we send them is funneled off to support their health care system???
Hey, IDIOT! No public option means if you work(and have health insurance) and pay taxes, Then you'll have to continue to pay for those ppl who don't have health insurance, Whether they work or not, And 65% of the uninsured have jobs but can't afford health insurance! The public option would mean that those ppl would have had insurance they could afford and pay for out of their own POCKET, Not YOURS, YOU FUCKING FOOL!!! So without a public option, Your stuck with the BILL, BAHHAHA, STUPID FUCK!
So you are saying that the uninsured are paid for by taxpayers and insured people already? If that is true, Then this is a cost increase for the low income earners. So how is that good?
OK! READ THIS SLOOOOOOLY, The public option is a health INSURANCE plan, You got that, INSURANCE !!! And just like PRIVATE INSURANCE, The PUBLIC OPTION insured person PAYS for it out of THEIR own POCKET!!! Right Now without the public option if an uninsured person goes to an emergency room for a heart attack or a bloody nose and doesn't pay the TAXPAYER picks up the TAB! So with the public option the emergency(very expensive)will be for emergencies only and covered as well as doctor visits!!!
Hey IDIOT! I still have to pay...except with a public option it would come out of my very ass in the form of income tax! And since we are 105 TRILLION in debt and cannot afford it anyway, and since the goverment is TERRIBLE at managing stuff and would cause it to be 3 times what it should cost, then we are better off without it.
You big DUMMY! Health care cost are a major part of the 105 trillion dollar debt, BONE HEAD, Because so many uninsured are costing the government billions in taxpayer money each year, And you're idea is to not have the Government charge individuals for their own health care, And to keep charging the taxpayer and bankrupting the country, Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me! I say everyone who works(legal or not) should pay for their own affordable health insurance!!!
You can tell lieberman isn't offended because his tone doesn't increase and his speed talking is static.
If he started speaking faster or slowing down and increasing or decreasing volume/pitch, you'd know he was truly offended.
A horrible liar, a horrible senator, a horrible human being. Lieberman will meet his maker on Judgment day and have to repent. Mercy is his only option, because justice will destroy him.
Who is this moron?? Rather than making your decisions beforehand....maybe trying getting the facts straight first rather than creating your own "straw man" arguments! If we could have some mature, honest and forthright debate about these issues that would be helpful. Not sarcastic boobs like this.
Im surprised the democrats haven't kicked this asshole out of their party a long time ago! lieberman is a fucking joke, and needs to be removed from office, any politician who is against the public option is against the American voice
I'm from Connecticut. Way WAY back when Lieberman was first elected, he seemed like "a man for the people." That lasted maybe a year. I get the feeling he was bought off by some wealthy individuals, because I never knew who he was after that.
We should just increase everyone's taxes by 20% accross the board. No more national debt very soon, no more lack of funding for schools, low cost tuition for college students.
But dumbass tea bagers, and people who are going to cry about "entitlement programs" get butthurt because they can't buy the same bullshit McDonald's burgers.
We don't need to increase taxes by 20%, we just need to stop spending trillions on the military and bs wars that do nothing but enrich the military industrial complex. And we need to stop doling out trillions in corporate welfare. That alone could pay for every social program we ever dreamed of.
Problem is the politicians keep us distracted and arguing and divided over stupid shit like abortion & gats, or race baiting & blaming welfare for all our problems.
The P.O. is not subsidized NOW, but it will soon. And when it is, it will outcompete all private ins programs and destroy them. We'll wind up with LESS choice.
It's difficult to make an argument about choice by suggesting that the a government plan would take it away, when every existing choice in the current system is limitted to being a bad choice. I don't think it's worth arguing that the privitized health insurance system has been a roaring success of "choice"
But we don't HAVE a privatized ins system. States put coverage requirement mandates on policies sold in their states that jack up prices. Then they prohibit you from buying across state lines so you wind up with only one or two choices. Then Medicare and other govt programs wind up paying about 50% of health care dollars, and so they distort the system. The fact that employer health ins is tax deductible not only destroys portability, it destroys the market pricing mechanism.
We DO have a privitized system. Certainly, like in most all industries, there are government regulations in health care to protect the consumer. That does not mean that insurance is government run. Insurance is by and large a private MONOPOLY of a few big comps.
And NO we do not want to extend "choice" beyond state lines because that simply allows the insurance comps to relocate in unregulated states which hurts the consumer--it would be a race to the bottom.
The oligopolies and monopolies in health ins were created by state regulations and coverage mandates. HMO system was created by the feds and decreases competition. It is govt that is giving us the oligopoly/monopoly.
That's what the govt wants: monopoly with govt ultimately in charge, not choice. We'll get less.
Monopolies control the market and raise costs. Primiums in medicare and medicade are relatively stable as programs for the poor and elderly. It is everybodyelse that is subject to monopolies, who have seen their premiums double in the past ten years, and is expected to double again. According to the AMA 95% of metropolitan markets are monopoly controlled by private comps--and they are running up costs felt in rising premiums. That is the problem, and I think any numbers will tell you that.
Just force states to allow their citizens to buy any insurance policy across state lines. This will destroy all the govt-created ins monopolies with the stroke of a pen! And the commerce clause in the Constitution requires it anyway.
No freesk, the mergers within states did not happen because of government regulation. Mergers happen because of LACK of regulation within states. But alllowing insurance comps to cross state lines is only good for the insurance comps. Blue cross in IN is the same Blue Cross in KY only with less regulations. That's what happens: insurance comps simply relocate to the least regulated states making insurance worse for all, except insurance comps hence they have no problem with your suggestion
Preventing state govts from artificially reducing are choices by deleting laws that prevent us from buying ins from other states increases choice for consumers.
Are you suggesting that consumers should not be allowed that choice? Are you suggesting that they can't handle such choice? If so, that is an elitist position, and contrary to the evidence we have about how markets tend to work.
Consumer choice is good--that's why we should have a public option. But that is the OPPOSITE of what you would have if insurance comps could cross state lines. What I am saying is that all insurance comps will relocate to the least regulated state, and so all insurance will be bought under the least regulated conditions--a great boon to the insurance comps and detrimant to the buyer who has no choice but to buy deregulated insurance. Those who need insurance would suffer the most.
Why are so many different models of cars, cell phones, so many different brands of cereal... All of these can be bought across state lines.
What interstate purchase of health ins would do is allow you to spend less for less coverage, instead of having to pay a high price for coverage you don't need. Or do you think that politicians should force us to buy particular policies for our own good?
With more choice, more could afford basic health ins.
Health insurance is not car insurance. Health concerns the body, not an inanimate object so the needs are different.
Basically what you would get by lifting state-lines restrictions is a cheap but gutted insurance policy for young healthy Americans, and a super expensive or unaccessible insurance policy for "unhealthy"--those considered to be "at risk"--Americans. It's MORE difficult to find good coverage because of fewer benefit mandates, higher premiums, and more incentive to deny coverage
You are stating some facts, but you lack the economic knowledge to tie them together and make sense of them. Just because you say there is too little regulation doesn't make it a fact, actually you're flat out wrong. The state mergers are only a problem because government regulation makes the start up costs so high for new companies and average annual costs so high for existing companies, that often they resign themselves to being bought out by the already well-establish companies. *cont. above
That is a terrible argument. You realize regulated insurance stifles competition and increases medical prices and premiums right?
The great fallacy of your argument is that you assume collusion, there will be no colluding of prices if insurance companies can sell across state lines. It will kill the current monopolies created by the greatest colluder of all, THE GOVERNMENT.
Insurance mandates, like maternity care, are important. These are guarantees that the care for your body will be descent care. Without them, you basically have a gutted insurance policy that covers very little--and this does NOT stifle competition.
Concerning LACK of regulation, I was speaking to the preventing of giant mergers, which is what has happened in states creating in 95% of state markets, private monopolies.
I should also add that medicaid/care and the VA do NOT COMPETE with each other or the private comps. Only certain people qualify for these programs, and the private comps are typically happy to let these "risky" elderly people and military vets with pre-existing conditions, and poor people who are typically not too healthy go to the government. Only a real viable public plan available for all to choose would really compete with the private comps.
Look, when govt gives free service it destroys markets. Imagine if govt said they were going to give everyone a free cell phone. Even if the cell phone sucked, most would take it because it was free. Only the rich would want to pay extra to get a nicer one. This is what we have in education, and this is what we have with medicare and the VA.
They take away 50% of the market! Taken together, the govt is already the largest player in the health ins market.
the pubplic option is not free healthcare. thats a gop lie. it's health insurance. affordable health insurance! when more people start to buy into the public plan, it will force private insurers to compete! Which will allow more people to have health insurace. they are just trying to make sure people are covered. old people have coverage. poor people have coverage. veterans have coverage. it's the people in the middle who suffer. let's make healthcare more affordable for them. can't argue that.
The P.O. will soon be subsidized by taxpayers when it starts to run deficits, as every govt program does. Then it will have an unfair advantage vs the pvt ins cos, and it will outcompete them until there is only one option: the govt monopoly health ins plan.
If you really want more competition in health ins, just force state govts to allow their citizens to buy health ins across state lines. This will destroy more monopoly at the stroke of a pen than has ever been done before.
Govt law prohibits Fed-Ex or UPS from home delivery of letters, except for overnight delivery. They only compete in the area of packages.
The Post Office has far greater revenue than either Fed-Ex or UPS. Fed-Ex and UPS exist in a small niche of the market because the govt prohibits them form competing with it.
Open up the market to competition and I think you will see the Post Office out of business in a decade.
Ever wait in line at a Post Office? Great customer service. Not.
One of the primary problems right now is regulations getting in the way of choice. Individuals are currently not allowed to band together to purchase as a group the way a business can. People are also not able to purchase insurance across state lines. If you're in NY, then you pay NY prices. Why not let them purchase from NV? There are laws on the books right now that prevent businesses from doing the monopolistic practices that the gov't option wants to do!
i can't believe they would even subjest to privitise social security, and i bet they will try before long, if they suceed we are in trouble.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
hey well done fox news anchor lady!
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@KangaKucha um, does libertain in the second clip, doesnt part of his reply sound like the public option he opposes?
KangaKucha 1 year ago
in 2012, this pig will be voted out of office for good, so he can go back to the hell frim which he came!
KangaKucha 1 year ago
TyT are so clueless
anryth 2 years ago
Recall Joe Lieberman!
electroboyny 2 years ago 6
@electroboyny OR BEAT HIM WITH A STICK, he will do!!!
KangaKucha 1 year ago
party of no scared to debate heath care 11/21/2009
hilleric1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What should happen to a sick and twisted person who molests a three year old child? The answers on my channel to this will shock you!
The video is called "Molester molests 3 year old infant"
Every day I get some of the most interesting comments. What do you think should happen to the guy who did this to this three year old infant?
WARNING: some of the comments are extremely graphic in nature and may not be suitable for everyone. This is a VERY heated and passionate topic.
NewsChat 2 years ago
hey young turk your a complete idiot
docrhee 2 years ago
Why would Lieberman vote to provide HC insurance to all Americans? He and his wife make 100s of thousands of dollars to support the HC insurance industry. He knows his career is over when his term expires. Connecticut voters hate this sold out lying criminal so he is cashing in while he can. Then hell go to work as a HC insurance lobbyist. This guy is pure scum.
RichardE8ST 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD'S PROMISE TO NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD. Bible - Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT PRIORITY - IS A HOAX !!!!!!!!
realtruthpursuit 2 years ago
Jew Lie.berman mouth smells like McNasty's ballsack says Palin in her new book
euro944t 2 years ago 2
If you live in Connecticut and have a facebook, join my facebook group Recall Joe Lieberman. I know that Connecticut does not currently have a law that allows a recall but that's also what the group is about. Calling your state representatives and state senators and telling them to pass a law that would allow a recall. Then calling your governor and telling her to sign into law.
bart11114 2 years ago
This guy is prick, he spent countless hours going after the video game industry for being immoral meanwhile he took a ton of money from Enron, why do abominations like this bastard live for ever
tico8007 2 years ago 2
FINALLY, a news program I can watch that speaks my language
ubernessism 2 years ago
Thank you Joe Lieberman for proving my pint.. You and other Democrats are the reason that I don't always vote for all Democrats. Lieberman can't be trusted just like most politicians. Case in point Lieberman ran on the democratic ticket with Kerry in 2004. When Kerry didn't win, Lieberman started kissing the GOP ass. Politicians ONLY care about themselves and not the people that they represent.....
UBUICounterAttack 2 years ago 6
I agree!
mizznini725 2 years ago
Lieberman was on the ticket with Gore not Kerry. Edwards was on the ticket with Kerry.
jonniebbad18 1 year ago
@jonniebbad18....thanks for the correction. yes, you're right
UBUICounterAttack 1 year ago
I might have been right, but agree with the content of your comment 100%.
jonniebbad18 1 year ago
Oh, and I'm not an anarchist. I believe we need to government in limited terms, because without government to enforce the framework of laws and supply a military, we would be in grave danger. So government is necessary for freedom, but because they have a role in limited terms is that an argument for unlimited terms? No. The people who take this argument enjoy the idea that such things can be viewed so black and white.
Okay now I'm done, lol, will answer later.
HapaLife 2 years ago
Answer me. Has government intervention to help the poor work? No, more people are on welfare than ever and we have a growing underclass. Has government intervention stopped drug flow? No drug use is rampant. Has government intervention made our schools better? No our education system is a joke.
Explain to me what government has done right, in explicit numbers and explicit terms, and then maybe you will have yourself an argument.
I'll answer it later I have work in 30.
HapaLife 2 years ago
Ok let's stick to a topic. The main issue you are taking exception to is government in relation to freedom, so let's focus on that. Surely you do not buy into the contradictions by the far right that the government can't do anything except run the largest military and prison system in the world. So lets assume that we both agree, the government can do things, and do them well. I believe that government should not be limited to protecting the propertied class. A democtratic gov.
Cont.
bachandl1 2 years ago
A democtratic government should play an active role in raising the conditions for economic and social wellbeing for all persons. Government should not simply be negative: Government simply protects from abuses, but plays no active role in ensuring fair conditions for "freedom".
In relation to health care, I think a single-payer should be employed and would be more affordable, more accessible, and more reliable.
bachandl1 2 years ago
*cont.
Europe has its own excruciatingly painful problems, despite how fashionable we try and make their system to be
If you believe government knows what is best for you, than you know what's best for yourself. If you believe agencies can handle the delicate intricacies of an economy than the people can, then government is the answer. If you believe quantity is better than quality, government is the answer. If you have no issue substituting your liberty for security, you don't deserve freedom.
HapaLife 2 years ago
*cont
Do we request government fix the problem they created? Yes. How? Get rid of the regulations they put in place in the first place.
What this boils down to is your belief in freedom. If you believe security is more important than freedom, well then government will sound like the best answer... but just keep in mind every country that has ever asked for security from its government has gone down the road to totalitarianism.
*cont. above
HapaLife 2 years ago
*cont.
This is just one aspect of many that would ultimately lead the public option to being THE ONLY OPTION. The public option would not spur competition, it will completely snuff it out because as I said government is not a natural entity of the private market.
So we have a problem of expensive insurance premiums that are a product of government intervention. State line barriers have created the monopolies that are now antagonizing us.
*cont above
HapaLife 2 years ago
Before you start assuming my lack of knowledge, you should makes sure you get your own facts right. Health insurance monopolies are largely a result of their exclusion from federal anti-trust laws, not large start up costs for small businesses. Now, after reading your belabored summary of how freemarkets work, I should tell you that I have a masters in philosophy and have read plenty of economics from Smith 1K page bible of economics to Friedman So spare me the "I know more than you" crap Cont
bachandl1 2 years ago 2
Anti-trust laws are laws NOT REGULATION. I'm not telling you that corporations should be excluded from LAW. The exclusion of corporations from anti-trust is just a further example of the corporatism inspired by government interests.
And spare me the masters in philosophy, a degree in philosophy is about as worthless as the paper it's written on.
I don't claim to be an expert of economics. I claim to enjoy freedom.
HapaLife 2 years ago
Regulations are laws my friend no matter how you slice it. Anti-trust laws are regulations--maybe you could use some philosophy to fine tune your logic; and tell your "it's useless" crap to MLK who, like me, studied theology and got his doctorate in it.
You believe in freedom so now we are in, uh oh, PHILOSOPHY TERRITORY
Let's just say, for now, I unlike you simply do not agree that freedom is necessarily negative in relation to gov. Gov. can provide the conditions for actualization con
bachandl1 2 years ago 2
Yes, regulation encompasses a large category. Including laws, but there are many more sub categories that I didn't think we had to go into because you claimed to have a 'Masters'. But if you want to go into semantics then yes laws are regulations, just as murder is regulated to keep people from being killed. But I'm not going to request the government regulate every move I make to ensure I'm not killed. I want to leave my house at night, that is my choice.
HapaLife 2 years ago
What makes you think that a public option would ultimately lead to the end of freedom?
bachandl1 2 years ago
Private corporations and private wealth can be a hindrance to freedom just as much a government--and in our case, the private comps control the government.
Just be careful with your absolute dichotomy between government and freedom. Freedom is not necessarily equal to a lack of positive government laws and institutions so long as those institutions, especially if the government that makes them is a government OF THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE
bachandl1 2 years ago
Competition by itself is not always good. The West learned that lesson good when it abandoned any hint of laissez-faire, and then decided to force newly formed thrid world states to detrimental laissez-faire practices that have ruined their economies. I sighed when you suggested it necessarily leads to better management: tell that to the employees who get trapped in fires in American based factories stationed in the third world because of lack of regulated working conditions COnt
bachandl1 2 years ago
American corporations in the third world can offer such poor work standards, because there is no internal competition for their labors to begin with. American corporations have a monopoly on labor in this sense.
Secondly, every country that has opened themselves up to the West are better off economically then countries that have not. Just because they have opened themselves up doesn't mean they are going to be the next America however. Capitalism needs the right framework and laws to operate in
HapaLife 2 years ago
Nope...I disagree with your take on the third world and the West entirely, and lack of regulation in those countries allowing cheap labor is the primary reason why Western comps relocate there.
And I like how you make me sound like the elitist, when you were the one who started the "I know more than you" stuff
You, like most Limbaugh conservatives, always jump from government intervention to totaletarianism and gov. control of your every move but without any real basis for the claim
Con
bachandl1 2 years ago
But we are talking about health care not econ 101--of which you accept the status quo theories.
As I have said repeatedly, releasing state barriers does not create more competition among the few health care giants that already dominate the nation. These few giants will simply relocate to the least regulated states which will gut insurance coverage and raise the costs for those who need it most. It would simply be a race to the bottom. The health industry wants that to happen.
bachandl1 2 years ago 3
Excuse me, econ 101 no matter how simple, still contains the bases for economic analysis. We are not talking about health care, health care is left to the doctor and the patient. We are discussing the administration of insurance. Economics no matter how simplified contain the principles necessary to conceptualize market behavior.
And I'm done arguing with you, all you do is repeat yourself, while taking shots at my 'simple' arguments. How about you fix your own arguments first. Peace.
HapaLife 2 years ago
cont*
Competition is the best fighter against corporate abuses. Now you can say government would be a competitor, but then you would be wrong again. Government is not a private market competitor because they do not observe the rules of the free market. They do not rely on the profit-motive, they rely on taxes. When people are taxed for a service, generally, people will gravitate towards that service because they want to get their money's worth. *cont above
HapaLife 2 years ago
cont*
If state barriers were taken down, now suddenly monopolies that enjoyed extremely limited competition would now have to answer to thousands of companies. Competition inspires better management of a company, there would be less managerial waste, more product diversification. Also, insurance companies could not just 'drop' people, because they have a reputation to look after on a national scale, where buyers will become wary and go elsewhere. *cont above
HapaLife 2 years ago
*cont.
How did they get so well-established? Well the only way monopolizers come into existence is when there are barriers to entry in the market. State lines protected them from outside competition and now these huge corporations that everyone detests are a product of that.
Also, you assume mandates are necessary to ensure quality. That is also false. Competition would not degrade quality if state barriers were taken down. *cont. above
HapaLife 2 years ago
Come to think of it, I've never seen Joe Lieberman and the antichrist in the same room together at the same time. Hey, wait a minute...
SheckyThePlumber 2 years ago
Let's empower the largest corporation in the world with a monopoly on health care - the U.S. government.
"Public Option" to start with is a lie and goes down hill from there. It is first and foremost a government monopoly. It would be like your cable company deciding what your satellite company should charge.
Google "Progressive Capitalist H.R 3962" to find my blog on this.
JohnLloydScharf 2 years ago
Ron Paul says" A public option is taking away from some, to give to others. Thats not liberty"
calimar28 2 years ago
You want free healthcare? Fine...make a deal then. I can say that if the goverment reduces immigration from 2 million a year to 100,000 a year, and stops the guest worker nonsense...and brings our troops home from 130 nations they are in now...then we conservatives will give you free "goverment" healthcare. DEAL? I and many conservatives would make a deal like that.
calimar28 2 years ago
conservatives...would want troops home? right!
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
Real consevatives yes. not faker ones like Bush, Cheney and other neocons. Learn what conservative means.
calimar28 2 years ago
real conservatives like ron paul? i like ron paul. i can respectfully disagree with him. i see his point of view though. i makes sense.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
Joe is a hero in my book.
calimar28 2 years ago
joe is a liar
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
OOO she actually asked him a tough question too, Fox have been falling over themselves lately though to prove their fair and balanced, a bit late in the day ofc but a good start.
HumbleObserver 2 years ago
When Ghandi made his first visit to UK a reporter asked him what he thought of "Western civilization", Ghandi simply replied that he thought "Western civilization" would be a good idea, not much has changed from then eh.
HumbleObserver 2 years ago
I don't blame anything on "the white man." If you'd read my earlier comments, you'd see that I am more concerned about culture and ethnicity than vague terms like "black" and "white" that are only useful when one wants to prove one's superiority over another.
I believe you mean "Western civilization" when you use such a term, and even that is incorrect since West. Civ is an amalgamation of a great number of cultures.
wanealy 2 years ago
what's with the obsession with "Jews?" I know you've stated you're not trying to be anti-semitic, but despite all my reading of history, I've never understood the desire to blame Jews for a majority of the world's ills. And by the way, I consider myself a principled critic of he state of Israel and someone who believes in the palestinian dream of statehood.
I think we get bogged down when we use shorthands like "whites", "blacks", "Jews" etc...
wanealy 2 years ago
I did not intend to start a racial fight with comments on my poor patients. I last worked at a VA hospital where I had the honor of helping our veterans of all races. I am sincerely worried about my patients regardless of race and enraged by Liebermans plan to defeat the public option and to filibuster with Repubs. He states the public option can wait for three or four years. The vernacular translation of this is, "give us three or four years and we will kill it".
DCFairbank 2 years ago
But it leads to race. Look, 100% of the black caucus supports the public option for a reason. Because they know it will lead to a "single payer system"...goverment run "free" healthcare. Liberals already admit they want public option because it will lead to singlepayer. Then the blacks get free healthcare, as will all the refugees we bring in every year (that we dont need) from Africa. So in a big way, this is a racial thing.
calimar28 2 years ago
So now you're saying no "white person" wants the public option? (lol!) You know I actually worked in Upstate New York as a social worker with mostly white rural folks. Poverty is poverty: it knows no color, and you better believe that one of the reasons I believe in single payer is that it will help everyone, not just one group. And no one I know believes it's free: we're not stupid. We just believe it's more fair than a system dictated by insurance companies.
wanealy 2 years ago
Yeah, but whites AS A WHOLE dont want. Blacks as a whole do. And there is your difference...I play the percentages.
Cultures from everywhere might be in the west, but the 3rd world cultures have not helped the west advance...be honest. Look at their home nations...3rd world. Whites are why the west evolved.
calimar28 2 years ago
Look, I could write a novel about all your erroneous beliefs and assumptions, but they basically boil down to: "blacks (and other minorities) are lazy and shiftless and have never come up with anything good, while whites are being persecuted despite the fact that they only have been a force for good in this world." I'm sorry but I just can't take anyone who believes these things seriously. Happy Fox News watching.
wanealy 2 years ago
No, I never said whites are perfect. Im talking about the politicaly correct shit that I have to constantly hear about "black in America" and "how great blacks are" and other stuff about MLK, despite the fact that without whites, blacks would be in the trees eating fruit with the monkeys. Whites get no cred for what they have created, whereas blacks get a ton of cred...for creating almost nothing! And causing high crime!
Something stinks.
calimar28 2 years ago
black people in america are not a 3rd world culture. that was a very unamerican thing to say. everyone with american heritage has played a part one way or another in the advancement of westeran civilization. africa is africa. america is america. my home nation is not africa. i may have some roots in africa. but my families home has always been AMERICA.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
I am saying that other than music, blacks have not contributed to the advancment at all of westren society. Saying that they have is a political correct lie. But hey, it FEELS GOOD to say it, right?...political correctness. Lets have more MLK holidays, and "black in America" programs, and black history month. Should we talk about all the great industry and maufacturing they invented and created? Procter & Gamble, AT&T, Ford? Yeah, thats why in Africa there is so much industry. (roll eyes)
calimar28 2 years ago
your whole statement is based off of opinion. a flaud opinion. it's also a very broad statement. there are many aspects to western society and you are saying that they only contributed to music. what about western culture? fashion? economics? religious? those are just a few aspects to western society! fuck being politically correct. and stop bring up africa. i'm american. people from africa are african. i'm from america.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
Black inventor /inventions
Andrew Beard - Automatic Car Coupling Device (1897)
Henry Blair
- Mechanical Seed Planter (1834)
- Mechanical Corn Harvester (1836)
C. B. Brooks - Street Sweeper (1896)
Mark Dean - Microcomputer system with bus control means for peripheral processing devices (1984)
Dr. Charles Drew - Established Blood Banks all over the world (1940)
jonniebbad18 1 year ago
cont. black inventos/inventions
Alexander Miles - Elevator (1888)
Garrett A. Morgan
- Gas Mask that saved many lives during WWI (1914)
- Automatic Traffic Signal (1923)
Norbett Rillieux - Sugar Refining System that revolutionized the making of sugar (1846)
jonniebbad18 1 year ago
cont. black inventors/inventions
W. H. Sammons - Hot Comb (1920)
Lewis Temple - Toggle Harpoon (1848)
Dr. Daniel Hale Williams - First Open Heart Surgery (1893)
Granville Woods
- Multiplex Telegraph system, allowing messages to be sent/received from moving trains (1887)
- Railway Air Brakes that provided the first safe method of stopping trains (1903)
- Steam-boiler/radiator (1884)
- Third Rail [subway] (1893)
the list is almost endless
jonniebbad18 1 year ago
I do not deny at all that race is a serious issue in our society. As a physician though, I refuse to allow it to affect the way in which I practice medicine. I am certain that you will disagree with me, but I believe that health care is a basic human right in a democratic nation. I used to believe that people should just pay their premiums and everything would be OK. Then I saw my first patient die after her insurance refused to cover the antibiotic she required but insisted on a cheaper med.
DCFairbank 2 years ago
how is this not going to raise the debt? you believe the congressional budget office? where is the money going to come from? WHERE?!
bdickers8 2 years ago
NO, Jo aint lying. it was on the real news tonight.
its a bs deal !
out2gtme 2 years ago
I don't live in Conn - but will contribute to his opponent in the next election.
He's a whore for the Insurance Companies.
DillonX 2 years ago 2
And to think that just 9 years ago he was your party's candidate for the Vice Presidency and you all loved him dearly! :( Boooo - Hoooooo!
StinkingHombre 2 years ago
LOL! Joe is never going to back this garbage!
Michele does look a little bit like a gorilla when you really look at her.
I'm not saying this from a racist point of view, just observation.
Minuteman9112012 2 years ago
Joe you are not great liar..also your logic fails.Republicans are a terrorist group.
humaner 2 years ago
Now, if blacks stop complaining, and start acknowledging what whites have done for the world in medicene, industry, manufacturing, and modernization...engineering (look at Europe too), and how Africa has none of that... then we can have a REAL dialog about race. But as long as "whitey sux" and "blacks are great" in every conversation, we will NEVER have that discussion. Not really.
And no more MLK days...we dont give a damn about MLK. Because blacks are ungrateful.
calimar28 2 years ago
When you claim talk about the exclusive achievement of whites, it makes me wonder if you've ever bothered cracking open a book of World History. Your claim that all those accomplishments are only "white" ones is laughably ignorant. Just to give you an example: you disparage Africa while ignoring the fact that algebra comes from the continent. As for where Africa is now: learn about colonialism: it'll set you straight on the so-called "superiority" of white culture.
wanealy 2 years ago
Wow! just read that calimer's comment.
That dude makes idiots look smart.
moebigsley1976 2 years ago
Here we go again...talking about how blacks contribute more than just crime in America. Ok...how many African nations are not garbage? Answer: NONE. All third world, producing zero. Oh I know, its whiteys fault, always is. Why we held them back you know, just like Jamacia and Hati right? And Japan...we dropped Atom bombs on them and occupied them but wait! Japan rose to a serious power despite that. No excuses from Japan.
Political correctness causes blacks to live the lie.
calimar28 2 years ago
wow: I actually thought you might be able to hold a civil debate, but to make sweeping generalizations like ."how many African nations are not garbage? Answer: NONE." is so ignorant that it's no use. You're less interested in reason than in stroking your own ego.
Good luck living a life filled with life-sapping narrowness. Just as I thought: you haven't read much in your life.
(oh and the part about Japan actually made me laugh" we nuked them, but hey, they're ok." This is redneck logic.)
wanealy 2 years ago
You assume that all blacks are going around saying things like "whitey sucks." All you're revealing is your own lack of experience with African Americans and your monumental insecurity. I have friends of all cultures and so do all the blacks I know, but once again, the very idea of saying "whites are...." or "blacks are..." is the height of intellectual laziness.
As for MLK, if you had really read him, you would know that his importance lay beyond simply race relations.
wanealy 2 years ago
The debt's gonna go higher.
Yeah did you think of that when you said we should stay in Iraq til we have victory which has costed us billions of dollars. or when you voted to bailout Wall street which also costed billions of dollars.
bart11114 2 years ago
Notice that Leiberman stammers more, the more he lies?
"I, uh, um, I, uh, don't, don't agree...."
Thanks for the insightful, convinceing argument there, Joe.
OrmEmber 2 years ago 3
Why don't you tell the real reason you oppose our right to choose a public option, Joe? Your corporate masters paid you 1.1 million in insurance lobby contributions, and you sold your political soul. You also sold your morals and ethics. And you gave us over to the private insurance companies, while you continue to keep your GOVERNMENT insurance plan; the same one you call an "entitlement program, if WE get it.
Thanks, Joe. We'll remember you.
OrmEmber 2 years ago 2
DESPICABLE !!!!!!
Even Fox commentators do recognize the obvious LACK OF MORALITY Lieberman displays by supporting private interest groups.
It cannot go lower than this......
*
honestlycorrect 2 years ago 2
fucking lies. the public option is paid for by the people that use it. it's just going to cost less than buying private insurance. the only reason for private insurance to raise their rates would be if everyone in the country decided to immediately jump to the public option, otherwise it forces private insurance to lower rates. that is BASIC economics. anyone who believes the shit he is spewing is not thinking straight. he's also saying lets not try any new answers to our long running problems.
thecellarlife 2 years ago
Please never elect this INSURANCE COMPANY WHORE to any other office!
DillonX 2 years ago
Americans can't fix their health care even in 21st century.. .......!!!!
All the industrailized world started one way or another public funding of health of their citizens > 60 years ago.
If americans can't fix their own nation then they should have no buiseness in medelling with other countries.
PEACE :)
ajss7 2 years ago
Part I:
I am a physician who has been anxiously awaiting a robust public health option on behalf of my patients. The majority of my work has been in the poor areas of Chicago where a majority of my patients patients have no health insurance or Medicaid if they are so lucky. I am also a registered Democrat who was absolutely disgusted by Joe Liebermans behavior during the 2008 election as he undermined President Obamas patriotism, qualifications and then endorsed Senator John McCain instead.
DCFairbank 2 years ago
You're obviously a commie socialist. Just joking!!! Good to see a caring citizen. Keep up the good work. Lets hope reform happens sooner rather than later.
880873 2 years ago
Poor areas of Chicago? Just admit it doc, your talking about the negros. Of course they dont have health care and need public healthcare. They need an entitlment on anything you can think of.
calimar28 2 years ago
Being a "negro" myself, I am truly impressed with your vast knowledge of the motivations of my people :)
Really? You had to go there? Pathetic Calimar. Really pathetic.
And by the way "entitlment" is spelled "entitlement." I suppose I should judge "your people" based on your lack of command of the English language, but no one would be THAT ignorant, right? (sarcasm, over).
wanealy 2 years ago
Well not all negros need entitlements, just most. Mabey your one of the good ones.
calimar28 2 years ago
Lets talk about the 800 pound gorilla (not Michelle) that is in the room. Whites are put off by Obamas election. Heres why.
Blacks provided a little labor (mabey 8% total) to build the country. Whites provided 80%, but more importantly, the stuff that counts - industry, manufacturing, production. Thats what makes America...America. And we dont think that a black should run what we made.
Whats wose is blacks always complain about whites...while enjoying what whites have made!
calimar28 2 years ago
Calimar, your analysis is so simplistic, I wonder if you've opened a book recently.
First off, please define "white" for me. Did you know Irish-Americans weren't considered "white" until about the 50's. Neither were Jews.
Second: I suppose all the labor of slavery, not to mention the exploitation of Native American land had NOTHING to do with the wealth of the country.
You haven't even begun to take seriously the complexity of this country.
wanealy 2 years ago
Slave labor = hard labor. That can be gotten anywhere, and only added to 8% of the total labor anyway. What about Manufacturing and industry? You know, the things that seperate the 3rd world from white countries?
Can you admit that whites have done GREAT and made the modren world? No, of course you wont. Just fan the flames of more whites not respecting blacks.
calimar28 2 years ago
On tope of this: African Americans and other minorities are the bulk of the working class, the very economic sectors you erroneously claim is made up by "whites": Industry: check. manufacturing? check.
Then you go into a childish joke about Michelle Obama being a Gorilla. If racist imagery is the best you can do, I'm not really threatened.
You've been fed mythology about your own superiority and are regurgitating it without an ounce of critical analysis: that's just sad
wanealy 2 years ago
HAHAHHAHAHA! "whites" and "blacks".
HAHAHAHAHAHAQHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHAHSAHAHAHAHAHAH!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
re you americans serious?!
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
ok so if 80% of the country was built by whites (you saying this not me) then im guessing it stands to reason that 80% of the presidents should be white right? now is 43 out of 44 80%? i dot think so. so in fact you white guys owe us minorities some presidents. also stuff that counts? black slaves built the capital that dosnt count?
EnterNameHere55 2 years ago
This is a remarkably ignorant comment that warrants no intelligent reply.
DCFairbank 2 years ago
Watching Liberman is about as exiciting as watching popsicles melt. Skinner's got more balls than most of those reporters.
TheCastellan 2 years ago
READ THIS TOO -
The Government will put Private insurers OUT OF BUSINESS Because the GOV doesn't CARE about making a PROFIT - they just tax you and me even more. Add to that Governments famous abilities regarding efficiency (none) and care for your dollars (none again) and you can see where it ends up.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Yep, How can you compete with anyone that can operate with a loss? You can't. So, insurers will be out of bussiness and the government (TAXPAYERS) will pay.
jimisback 2 years ago
Goverment doesnt care about makign a proffit? Have you ever read a bill that goes through congress? They add a bunch of stuff called "pork", and then they pay for it all with OUR MONEY.
calimar28 2 years ago
You are probably right. Luckily I live in a nation where everything works rather smoothly and the government is careful about their spending.
It is possible that Americans are of a different breed then us Norwegians, and as such are to vile, satanic and evil to do what is good. If that is the case, I guess the public option is not for you.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Evil and satanic? Tell you what, you start bringing in 300,000 African blacks into your country every year, and then tell me how your health care costs are going. And when the Norwegien army occupies 130 nations in the world with 700 bases, we will see how Norway can afford any health care.
calimar28 2 years ago
WE don't occupy 130 nations because we are not retarded. Its not my fault your government is utterly idiotic. You know why 9/11 happened? You know why much of the world hates america?
WE don't bring in 300.000 people per year because we are not retarded. It is not my fault your government is retarded. Its your country. Your problem. Deal with it.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Lets say it, it needs to be finally said. Hitler was a genius. You can put him down for a lot of things done wrong, but he did a lot of right as well. A military and financial genius he was.
calimar28 2 years ago
Notice how Republicans always talk about money and Democrats always are the ones who talk about love and care for humanity?
Good always wins over evil.
Anyone who supports 44,000 needless american deaths a year over profits for private insurance, I wonder what side god has them on? Good or evil? there are only two types of people,good and bad.
1911arthur 2 years ago
Love and care for humanity costs big money. The below quote explains everything...
"Humanatarianism is weak and cowerdace" - Adolf Hitler
You may not like Hitler, but he was a financial genius. We are 105 trillion in debt. We might go bankrupt, and the dollar go itno hyperinflation. That means 1,000 dollars for a loaf of bread. That means China wants paid back, and we can only give them land...this is serious stuff.
Public option? That only adds to the debt. Your priorities are wrong
calimar28 2 years ago
Anyone who quotes Adolf Hitler to try and lend credibility to a position is a degenerate.
It is very safe to say that the best thing you can do with a Hitler quote is read it and do the opposite.
Btw, Hitler did create a very paternal state during in Nazi Germany. If you are looking at Nazi Germany as an example of laissez-faire capitalism you are definitely barking up the wrong tree. And he was no financial genius. He had absolutely no training in economics or business & cared little for it
FlatulenceFox 2 years ago
He took Germany from broke to a world superpower in about 7 years. You may not call that genius, but I do.
And quoting the Fueh--I mean Hitler has no credibility you say, but Obama's spokeswoman quoting Mai Sai Tung...that has credibility? You know how many people that communist killed?
Hypocracy
calimar28 2 years ago
I just read your long string of comments and arguments with other people here and now I pretty much fully understand the depths of your ignorance. So your believing Hitler was some kind of financial genius does not surprise me. You are just another childish admirer of the monster and you know nothing but superficial information about the man.
Btw, he brought Germany out of debt by shrugging off its obligations that were placed on them from the Versailles Treaty. Nothing genius there at all.
FlatulenceFox 2 years ago
right. but they say god would vote republican lol
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
Traitor Joe. Even Benedict Arnold was a better role model.
This guy is only for his own interests not the Majority, as they have spoken.
No Christian would ever dare vote for 44,000 needless American deaths a year.
Those who would, well, they will have to explain that one to their maker.
1911arthur 2 years ago
Jew mother fucker!
usergently 2 years ago
So anyway...we are not gettign a public option. Now (snicker), I'm trying to type and laugh at the same time...(snickers) and it's hard to do...
Umm...no public option. Did I say that already? Hey liberals, since we wont get it now, we will never get it. I say GREAT! Deal with it.
Illegal immigration debate coming in January...round two!
calimar28 2 years ago
*
DESPICABLE !!!!!!
Even Fox commentators do recognize the obvious LACK OF MORALITY Lieberman displays by supporting private interest groups.
It cannot go lower than this......
*
honestlycorrect 2 years ago
Lieberman is a AIPAC shill.
MendingMedia 2 years ago
That warmonger free spender is cheap on the "people", and liberal on pissing trillions on corporate war in asia, drug wars and other stupidity... evil 2 party corporate state puts up its bought scumbag.
cheekieweekie 2 years ago
This hound dog looking motherfucker definitely has his nose up the big insurance companies ASSES!!! But what really pisses me off, Is this cocksucker supports sending Israel billions in tax payer money, But he won't support his own citizens have affordable health insurance, And if the US is the only democracy that doesn't have public run insurance, Does that include Israel? and how much of the billions we send them is funneled off to support their health care system???
162berto 2 years ago
Hahaha this is funny! NO PUBLIC OPTION!
Hey liberals...your not going to get it. If not now, then when? Answer is NEVER! BAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Do we the people want to pay for the 3rd world and negro's health care? NO.
calimar28 2 years ago
So, you're willing to not apply for medicare? You're a joke.
Painsandwich 2 years ago
Hey, IDIOT! No public option means if you work(and have health insurance) and pay taxes, Then you'll have to continue to pay for those ppl who don't have health insurance, Whether they work or not, And 65% of the uninsured have jobs but can't afford health insurance! The public option would mean that those ppl would have had insurance they could afford and pay for out of their own POCKET, Not YOURS, YOU FUCKING FOOL!!! So without a public option, Your stuck with the BILL, BAHHAHA, STUPID FUCK!
162berto 2 years ago
So you are saying that the uninsured are paid for by taxpayers and insured people already? If that is true, Then this is a cost increase for the low income earners. So how is that good?
jimisback 2 years ago
OK! READ THIS SLOOOOOOLY, The public option is a health INSURANCE plan, You got that, INSURANCE !!! And just like PRIVATE INSURANCE, The PUBLIC OPTION insured person PAYS for it out of THEIR own POCKET!!! Right Now without the public option if an uninsured person goes to an emergency room for a heart attack or a bloody nose and doesn't pay the TAXPAYER picks up the TAB! So with the public option the emergency(very expensive)will be for emergencies only and covered as well as doctor visits!!!
162berto 2 years ago
Right !!!!! So the poor now have to pay also. And it is not PUBLIC option, IT IS GOVERNMENT OPTION.
jimisback 2 years ago
Hey IDIOT! I still have to pay...except with a public option it would come out of my very ass in the form of income tax! And since we are 105 TRILLION in debt and cannot afford it anyway, and since the goverment is TERRIBLE at managing stuff and would cause it to be 3 times what it should cost, then we are better off without it.
calimar28 2 years ago
the public option is not paid with tax money!!!!! jesus christ, reseach it yourself, it's paid entirely with premiums.
and it saves money. it forces health insurance companies to compete. the gop is not offering anything.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
The GOP has offered things go read a little. Like letting insurers compete across state lines. Remember the compete thing?
jimisback 2 years ago
You big DUMMY! Health care cost are a major part of the 105 trillion dollar debt, BONE HEAD, Because so many uninsured are costing the government billions in taxpayer money each year, And you're idea is to not have the Government charge individuals for their own health care, And to keep charging the taxpayer and bankrupting the country, Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me! I say everyone who works(legal or not) should pay for their own affordable health insurance!!!
162berto 2 years ago
No, we pay...the taxpayer. We pay for 58 new goverment bueracrcies, and I can tell you it will be more expensive if the goverment got involved.
But it doesnt matter, its a dead issue now.
BAHAHAHAHAH!
calimar28 2 years ago
I have come to find that The Young Turks are filemed and funded by Robert Greenwald(Brave New) a known communist and by the Communist party USA.
{Robert Greenwald believes ina one world goverment,one world leader,one world money,no religion,depopulation of the Earth}
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
I believe almost everyone realizes now that Joe Liebarman is working for the insurance Companies & not the American Public.
He has zero chance of being elected!
DillonX 2 years ago
kindly read revelation 2:9 and 3:9. This will tell you all you need to know. out.
ddamico3 2 years ago
Comment removed
idlefritz 2 years ago
You can tell lieberman isn't offended because his tone doesn't increase and his speed talking is static.
If he started speaking faster or slowing down and increasing or decreasing volume/pitch, you'd know he was truly offended.
A horrible liar, a horrible senator, a horrible human being. Lieberman will meet his maker on Judgment day and have to repent. Mercy is his only option, because justice will destroy him.
ViraIVideos 2 years ago
Who is this moron?? Rather than making your decisions beforehand....maybe trying getting the facts straight first rather than creating your own "straw man" arguments! If we could have some mature, honest and forthright debate about these issues that would be helpful. Not sarcastic boobs like this.
grappler200 2 years ago
Im surprised the democrats haven't kicked this asshole out of their party a long time ago! lieberman is a fucking joke, and needs to be removed from office, any politician who is against the public option is against the American voice
MrQuan2u 2 years ago
I'm from Connecticut. Way WAY back when Lieberman was first elected, he seemed like "a man for the people." That lasted maybe a year. I get the feeling he was bought off by some wealthy individuals, because I never knew who he was after that.
I probably just described a lot of politicians.
FigurinItOut 2 years ago 3
Watch the Movie Now!FFAMoviesCOMFFAMoviesCOMFFAMoviesCOMFFAMoviesCOM
TheSocialBear1 2 years ago
We should just increase everyone's taxes by 20% accross the board. No more national debt very soon, no more lack of funding for schools, low cost tuition for college students.
But dumbass tea bagers, and people who are going to cry about "entitlement programs" get butthurt because they can't buy the same bullshit McDonald's burgers.
blasphimus 2 years ago
We don't need to increase taxes by 20%, we just need to stop spending trillions on the military and bs wars that do nothing but enrich the military industrial complex. And we need to stop doling out trillions in corporate welfare. That alone could pay for every social program we ever dreamed of.
Problem is the politicians keep us distracted and arguing and divided over stupid shit like abortion & gats, or race baiting & blaming welfare for all our problems.
rob8910 2 years ago 3
Lieberman you are such a fucking liar. Private insurers negotiate rates too you fucking bastard.
jotunobsidianeyes 2 years ago
Are Connecticut voters on acid?
svahdat 2 years ago
I oppose Lieberman's hawkish foreign policy, all I am saying is that on the issue of the public option, he is right.
CA and NY have overspent and overtaxed. They destroyed their own economies.
I'm a libertarian, which means I'm a fiscal conservative.
freesk8 2 years ago
The P.O. is not subsidized NOW, but it will soon. And when it is, it will outcompete all private ins programs and destroy them. We'll wind up with LESS choice.
Lieberman is right here.
freesk8 2 years ago
It's difficult to make an argument about choice by suggesting that the a government plan would take it away, when every existing choice in the current system is limitted to being a bad choice. I don't think it's worth arguing that the privitized health insurance system has been a roaring success of "choice"
bachandl1 2 years ago
But we don't HAVE a privatized ins system. States put coverage requirement mandates on policies sold in their states that jack up prices. Then they prohibit you from buying across state lines so you wind up with only one or two choices. Then Medicare and other govt programs wind up paying about 50% of health care dollars, and so they distort the system. The fact that employer health ins is tax deductible not only destroys portability, it destroys the market pricing mechanism.
freesk8 2 years ago 2
We DO have a privitized system. Certainly, like in most all industries, there are government regulations in health care to protect the consumer. That does not mean that insurance is government run. Insurance is by and large a private MONOPOLY of a few big comps.
And NO we do not want to extend "choice" beyond state lines because that simply allows the insurance comps to relocate in unregulated states which hurts the consumer--it would be a race to the bottom.
bachandl1 2 years ago
50% of health care dollars are spent by the govt via medicare/medicaid, VA hospitals, govt employee ins.
That's hardly privatized. That's already half socialized.
You want more?
The oligopolies and monopolies in health ins were created by state regulations and coverage mandates. HMO system was created by the feds and decreases competition. It is govt that is giving us the oligopoly/monopoly.
That's what the govt wants: monopoly with govt ultimately in charge, not choice. We'll get less.
freesk8 2 years ago
Monopolies control the market and raise costs. Primiums in medicare and medicade are relatively stable as programs for the poor and elderly. It is everybodyelse that is subject to monopolies, who have seen their premiums double in the past ten years, and is expected to double again. According to the AMA 95% of metropolitan markets are monopoly controlled by private comps--and they are running up costs felt in rising premiums. That is the problem, and I think any numbers will tell you that.
bachandl1 2 years ago
But the state govts CREATED those monopolies!
Just force states to allow their citizens to buy any insurance policy across state lines. This will destroy all the govt-created ins monopolies with the stroke of a pen! And the commerce clause in the Constitution requires it anyway.
freesk8 2 years ago
No freesk, the mergers within states did not happen because of government regulation. Mergers happen because of LACK of regulation within states. But alllowing insurance comps to cross state lines is only good for the insurance comps. Blue cross in IN is the same Blue Cross in KY only with less regulations. That's what happens: insurance comps simply relocate to the least regulated states making insurance worse for all, except insurance comps hence they have no problem with your suggestion
bachandl1 2 years ago
More consumer choice is good, right?
Preventing state govts from artificially reducing are choices by deleting laws that prevent us from buying ins from other states increases choice for consumers.
Are you suggesting that consumers should not be allowed that choice? Are you suggesting that they can't handle such choice? If so, that is an elitist position, and contrary to the evidence we have about how markets tend to work.
I say trust the people. Let them choose.
Not the govt elites.
freesk8 2 years ago
Consumer choice is good--that's why we should have a public option. But that is the OPPOSITE of what you would have if insurance comps could cross state lines. What I am saying is that all insurance comps will relocate to the least regulated state, and so all insurance will be bought under the least regulated conditions--a great boon to the insurance comps and detrimant to the buyer who has no choice but to buy deregulated insurance. Those who need insurance would suffer the most.
bachandl1 2 years ago
So why doesn't that happen in other markets?
Why are so many different models of cars, cell phones, so many different brands of cereal... All of these can be bought across state lines.
What interstate purchase of health ins would do is allow you to spend less for less coverage, instead of having to pay a high price for coverage you don't need. Or do you think that politicians should force us to buy particular policies for our own good?
With more choice, more could afford basic health ins.
freesk8 2 years ago
Health insurance is not car insurance. Health concerns the body, not an inanimate object so the needs are different.
Basically what you would get by lifting state-lines restrictions is a cheap but gutted insurance policy for young healthy Americans, and a super expensive or unaccessible insurance policy for "unhealthy"--those considered to be "at risk"--Americans. It's MORE difficult to find good coverage because of fewer benefit mandates, higher premiums, and more incentive to deny coverage
bachandl1 2 years ago
You are stating some facts, but you lack the economic knowledge to tie them together and make sense of them. Just because you say there is too little regulation doesn't make it a fact, actually you're flat out wrong. The state mergers are only a problem because government regulation makes the start up costs so high for new companies and average annual costs so high for existing companies, that often they resign themselves to being bought out by the already well-establish companies. *cont. above
HapaLife 2 years ago
That is a terrible argument. You realize regulated insurance stifles competition and increases medical prices and premiums right?
The great fallacy of your argument is that you assume collusion, there will be no colluding of prices if insurance companies can sell across state lines. It will kill the current monopolies created by the greatest colluder of all, THE GOVERNMENT.
HapaLife 2 years ago
Insurance mandates, like maternity care, are important. These are guarantees that the care for your body will be descent care. Without them, you basically have a gutted insurance policy that covers very little--and this does NOT stifle competition.
Concerning LACK of regulation, I was speaking to the preventing of giant mergers, which is what has happened in states creating in 95% of state markets, private monopolies.
Read my previous post concerning state-lines.
bachandl1 2 years ago
I should also add that medicaid/care and the VA do NOT COMPETE with each other or the private comps. Only certain people qualify for these programs, and the private comps are typically happy to let these "risky" elderly people and military vets with pre-existing conditions, and poor people who are typically not too healthy go to the government. Only a real viable public plan available for all to choose would really compete with the private comps.
bachandl1 2 years ago
Of course they compete!
Look, when govt gives free service it destroys markets. Imagine if govt said they were going to give everyone a free cell phone. Even if the cell phone sucked, most would take it because it was free. Only the rich would want to pay extra to get a nicer one. This is what we have in education, and this is what we have with medicare and the VA.
They take away 50% of the market! Taken together, the govt is already the largest player in the health ins market.
freesk8 2 years ago
the public option is not free. it's insurance. you have to pay a monthly premium.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
That may be true now, but govt programs tend to run deficits eventually. Like the Post Office.
When they do, the playing field will no longer be level.
freesk8 2 years ago
you obviously haven't done enough research on the public option. please just research it on a bipartisan site.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
the pubplic option is not free healthcare. thats a gop lie. it's health insurance. affordable health insurance! when more people start to buy into the public plan, it will force private insurers to compete! Which will allow more people to have health insurace. they are just trying to make sure people are covered. old people have coverage. poor people have coverage. veterans have coverage. it's the people in the middle who suffer. let's make healthcare more affordable for them. can't argue that.
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
The P.O. will soon be subsidized by taxpayers when it starts to run deficits, as every govt program does. Then it will have an unfair advantage vs the pvt ins cos, and it will outcompete them until there is only one option: the govt monopoly health ins plan.
If you really want more competition in health ins, just force state govts to allow their citizens to buy health ins across state lines. This will destroy more monopoly at the stroke of a pen than has ever been done before.
Can too.
freesk8 2 years ago
you are right! the post office is crushing fed ex and ups! not
Ceddyohtwo 2 years ago
Govt law prohibits Fed-Ex or UPS from home delivery of letters, except for overnight delivery. They only compete in the area of packages.
The Post Office has far greater revenue than either Fed-Ex or UPS. Fed-Ex and UPS exist in a small niche of the market because the govt prohibits them form competing with it.
Open up the market to competition and I think you will see the Post Office out of business in a decade.
Ever wait in line at a Post Office? Great customer service. Not.
freesk8 2 years ago
One of the primary problems right now is regulations getting in the way of choice. Individuals are currently not allowed to band together to purchase as a group the way a business can. People are also not able to purchase insurance across state lines. If you're in NY, then you pay NY prices. Why not let them purchase from NV? There are laws on the books right now that prevent businesses from doing the monopolistic practices that the gov't option wants to do!
dgunsnfun 2 years ago